In a recent video commentary published in Medscape, New York University professor Arthur L. Caplan, PhD offered his views on the question of whether children have "vaccination rights."1

Dr. Caplan thinks that what he defines as the "vaccination rights" of minor children supersede the legal right of their parents to exercise informed consent to vaccination on their children's behalf if a parent elects to decline one or more government recommended vaccines for whatever reason. He claims that vaccinating children represents a higher moral imperative than respecting the informed consent rights of parents.

"I want to point out a moral stance that I don't think has gotten enough attention, which is that every child has the right to be vaccinated," said Caplan. "We keep talking about parents' right to say yes or no, to avoid mandates or requirements, or to do what they choose to do. Someone has to speak up and say, 'Well, what about the kids? Don't they have any rights?'"1

One of the fundamental errors in thinking about measles vaccine effectiveness is that receipt of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine equates to bona fide immunity against measles virus. Indeed, it is commonly claimed by health organizations like the CDC that receiving two doses of the MMR vaccine is "97 percent effective in preventing measles," despite a voluminous body of contradictory evidence from epidemiology and clinical experience.

This erroneous thinking has led the public, media and government alike to attribute the origin of measles outbreaks, such as the one reported at Disney in 2015 (and which lead to the passing of SB277 that year, stripping vaccine exemptions for all but medical reasons in California), to the non-vaccinated, even though 18% of the measles cases occurred in those who had been vaccinated against it - hardly the vaccine's two-dose claimed "97% effectiveness." The vaccine's obvious fallibility is also indicated by the fact that that the CDC now requires two doses.

Comment: Yet more evidence that the pro-vaccine narrative is extremely fragile, only held in place by shouting media talking heads and social media outrage. It would be nice if the truth was actually able to penetrate some of the small minds with a complete misunderstanding of the science.

From government health agencies down to individual media mouthpieces, the flimsy safe and effective, science is settled argument to defend vaccines from scrutiny depended on one strategy. The corporate media-manufactured anti-vaxxer label would need to stick, polarize debate and eventually render a massive cross-section of the population with multifaceted questions surrounding vaccines invisible. And just as important, the neutralizing affects would have to do so in a relatively short period of time. However, glimpses of the failing strategy are now being seen on many fronts with increasing regularity. A expansive base of people now question vaccines from all walks of life and are continually challenging the settled science narrative.

In an effort to damage control a greater awakening and the inconvenient facts being pointed out, there appears to be a move towards stronger censorship. Individuals and institutions desperate to protect the multibillion dollar vaccine industry are experiencing an integrity crisis. Recent techniques being employed by media, when they are forced to engage rather than ignore, are continuous appeals to authority, reflexively dehumanization or discriminate and to drag out the always tired, inaccurate talking points surrounding Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy. It's not just the media that is having to preserve an indefensible settled science vaccine position.

You have read articles in the lay press saying that fasting and ketogenic diets are dangerous. Well that is true if the person going on them has a serious illness, especially if they are taking diabetes medications that can lower blood sugars or a medicine to lower blood pressure because on these diets high blood sugars (a bad thing) are going to go down (a good thing) but if you are taking a medication that lowers blood sugar it could go too low (a bad thing). Likewise your blood pressure is going to go down on a ketogenic diet with fasting (a good thing) but if you are on medicines to lower your blood pressure then your blood pressure could go too low (again, a bad thing).

There is nothing inherently dangerous about these diets. If you consider all the humans who have ever lived then 1000 humans have lived on a ketogenic diet with intermittent fasting for every human who has lived on a high carb diet with 2-3 meals a day since humans have only engaged in widespread farming for 10,000 of our almost 200,000 years on the planet.

It means some clinical decisions are made without all the available data.

Comment: It seems there are many cases where studies that don't have the results someone wants remain unpublished. It's a pretty good way to ensure there's no interruption in the steady stream of cash flowing into the pockets of Big Pharma. See:

Pre-harvest application of herbicides as a (toxic) drying agent on wheat is an established practice on many conventional farms. The method was first suggested as early as 1980, becoming routine in North America over the past 15 years or so. Use is also widespread in the UK.

Applying herbicides like Roundup 7-10 days before harvest is viewed as especially helpful for wheat that ripens unevenly, a common occurrence. It is also considered a helpful tool to initiate an earlier harvest when weather conditions threaten plant viability. Other benefits are earlier ripening for earlier replanting and reducing the green material in the field. This puts less strain on farm machinery during harvest.

Farmers euphemistically call the practice "desiccation". When used during wheat harvest, it can result in slightly greater yield by triggering plants to release more seeds.

Darth: Question the veracity of the lipid hypothesis and suffer my vicious name-calling, Luke! Luke: I'll never join you! I'd rather be ejected into space than attempt medical interventions based on faulty premises counter to overwhelming evidence!

If there's one thing I can be thankful for, it's the fact that the Guardian keeps publishing BS dietary and medical propaganda in massive quantities so that I never run out of things to write about. Another piece just hit the internet this week decrying the rise of the dangerous "cholesterol sceptics". Titled "Butter nonsense: the rise of the cholesterol deniers", by Sarah Boseley, it's yet another appeal to the authority of 'experts' to prop up the woefully outdated mainstream cholesterol hypothesis in the face of mounting evidence challenging its position. It reads like a typical hatchet job, full of projection, lacking in actual evidence and bolstering the 'official position' over dissenting voices.

The use of the term 'deniers' is, no doubt, a calculated one. Much as with the term 'climate-change denier' in regards to those who dare to question the orthodoxy of the AGW position, the term is used to bring an association with holocaust deniers, a term steeped in racism, conspiracy theory and a favoring of hate over logic. It's a hell of a thing to associate someone with, especially if their position is relying on logic, research and bravely stepping away from a position that is popular to one that is potentially career-ending, because it's closer to the truth. It's also ridiculously hyperbolic, reminiscent of the NPC command-line response "everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi". At this point, if you see the loaded term 'denier' in a headline, you can be sure that anything that follows is a smear intended to shut down legitimate criticism.

Autohemotherapy is a concept attributed to Dr. Paul Ravaut at the beginning of the last century (1912) which involves the injection of blood withdrawn from your arm using a syringe and needle - just as a sample is taken when you have a blood lab analysis - and is then immediately injected back into the muscle (intramuscular) in your buttocks.

To illustrate how this simple technique proved to be useful throughout medical history, we're going to review one of the most astounding research articles on this topic. 'Autohemotherapy in Psychiatry' was published in the Maryland State Medical Journal by Robert Reddick back in 1955 when he was President of the Dorchester County Medical Society. He reports,

That is a pretty compelling list whose track record should not be underestimated. We'll have a look at some of it later on, but first let's go back to Reddick's report on autohemotherapy in a population of psychiatric patients:

In folklore and movies, silver is often one of the best tools against terrifying monsters like vampires and werewolves. But a recent study seems to show that silver could help defeat some real-life horrors, too. Silver nanoparticles loaded with common anti-seizure drugs might be able to safely and effectively treat brain-eating infections caused by amoebas, the study found.

Amoebas are incredibly flexible, single-celled protozoans, capable of creating finger-like protrusions from their body that let them crawl where they need to go. Typically, amoebas aren't the least bit interested in people, preferring to live in freshwater or the soil, where they feed on bacteria.

But when certain species of amoeba end up in a person's central nervous system and brain-usually by being inhaled through the nose from contaminated water-they can literally feast on the brain's tissues. This mind-nomming, coupled with the widespread inflammation brought on by the immune system desperately trying to fight the infection, eventually shuts down the brain, though not before sufferers experience severe headaches, a loss of smell and taste, hallucinations, and coma.